I Am Soldier - Noel Clarke just about makes it watchable

I really wanted to love this.  Not because I’m that much of a fan of ‘war movies’ in general, but I just liked the premise, i.e. seeing what it takes to be part of the S.A.S. (something that I would never be able to do myself, due to being too addicted to comfy sofas, Playstation and takeaway pizza – apparently the world’s toughest soldiers aren’t allowed any of these during missions).

The story follows two recruits (each with their own personal demons) as they go on an S.A.S. training mission in the British wilderness to see if they have what it takes.  I won’t tell you if they succeed or not, only that I wouldn’t have made it for five minutes.

Noel Clarke (Kidulthood) is one of their various ‘drill sergeant-type figures’ who is there to mentor them as they go and he does his best to lift the film out of mediocrity.  He’s about the only star you may really recognise.  And, perhaps that’s one of the film’s main faults: it screams ‘cheapness’ at all times.  It has no real big name actors and the dialogue and acting talent on show isn’t exactly top drawer.  However, its bleakness does add a level of realism to the film that gives you quite an overall gritty tone.

I’ve read comments online about how there are blatant errors in the story.  These seem to all come from people who have actually served in the military and can spot when a British soldier gives an American salute (I didn’t even know there were two different types!).  But, from my completely nonexistent military background, no ‘factual errors’ were apparent.  If I had to guess I’d say this was a reasonable portrayal as to how tough recruits have it.  I rolled my eyes more when our two recruits encounter an attractive woman on the train, only for her to ‘coincidently’ show up a few scenes later.

It’s not perfect and definitely isn’t for everybody.  But if you’re in the mood for something gritty and brutal, plus you like soldier movies in general, give it a go.  It’s not the longest of films, so you won’t feel like you’ve invested too much of your life in it anyway.

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

Jack Reacher - Nothing new, but nothing bad

I'm a casual fan of Tom Cruise, so I just watched this regardless. I didn't know much about the book, so I can't comment on how accurate it is to its source material. All I remember hearing was that the titular character was much taller in the book, therefore an actor of Tom's - ahem - 'stature' wasn't the best fit to play the giant of a man.  I thought it would be more action-packed - like a kind of vigilante going round seeking revenge on your general baddies. As it turned out, it's more like a cop movie (but without a cop as the lead character). What action there is is all right, plus the acting is fair and it is not hard to see that money has been put into this movie.

Tom Cruise is an ex military policeman who's investigating a seemingly motiveless sniper who killed five apparently innocent civilians. No sooner is he on the case does he meet the unfeasible attractive attorney, played by Rosamund Pike. I found this aspect of the film the most far-fetched - you know instantly that she's going to be the `will-they/won't they' love interest of the film.

From then on, the film follows a typical template for this kind of movie. It's played absolutely straight (a bit like the `Bourne' films, but without the near-constant chase scenes all the way through) and it doesn't really add anything original to the genre of action/thriller movies.

If you're looking for a bit of a conspiracy thriller with a plot that slowly unravels, this isn't a bad way to spend a couple of hours (plus it's nice to see Tom Cruise and Robert Duvall sharing the screen again since 'Days of Thunder'). If you can believe that every single female in America who meets Tom Cruise wants to bed him, whether she's twice his age of half his age, then you should find this enjoyable.  It's been a week since I watched 'Jack Reacher' for the second time and I actually can't remember anything about it (besides what I've written above) - I think that tells me everything I need to know, i.e. that it's an enjoyable enough romp while you're watching it, but it's hardly likely to leave a long, lasting impression.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

2 Guns - 2 Guns - no nonsense

Yes, there have been cops and robbers movies. Yes, there have been `buddy-cop' movies and yes, there have been a tonne of movies where the protagonists fall foul of the mob and end up `owing them big-time.' However, very few of those manage to pull of those generic plotlines off in one movie (and, more amazing still, make it work).

The two of them play a pair of bank robbers.  Or do they?  Maybe they're really working for different law enforcement agencies and are just trying to infiltrate the crininal underworld?  And maybe they don't know each other's motivations!  This 'uncertainty' (for the characters, at least - we, the audience know what's going on - it's not rocket science) about who's working for who gives the two A-list leads plenty of opportunities to engage in great banter.

'2 Guns' is nothing original, but it is fast-paced, slick, stylish and, best of all, entertaining. This is probably down to the two leads - the ever-reliable Denzel Washington and the mainly-reliable Mark Wahlberg. Perhaps without these two heading the bill, the film would have been as sub-standard as the plot suggests. The two actors play off each other brilliantly and save every scene from ever slipping into mediocrity. There's a real `Pulp Fiction' vibe between them with all the banter and general chit-chat which helps establish their characters.

There are plenty of good performances from the supporting cast, too. The long forgotten Bill Paxton (still best known for `Hudson' in Aliens) is great as the villain.  There's a minor 'love interest' thrown in for Denzel Washington and, yes, it could probably have been removed completely, but at least it doesn't get in the way of the general action andd carnage.

Basically, if you like cops and robbers, crime, gangsters, or just generally action movies, you can't go far wrong with this one. Grab the popcorn, ignore the odd plothole and just enjoy the ride.  Oh, and if you're not into multiple cursing and violece, you may want to steer clear of this one.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Superbad - The clue is in the name ;o)

I first watched 'Superbad' and I didn't like it much.  In short: totally forgettable.  It was only as the years went by did I realise quite how much of a 'cult following' it had, so I decided to give it another go.  I have to say that it gets better each time I watched it.  I can only assume I was in the mood for something a little more serious and 'high-brow' when I initially sat down.  However, now I know what I'm getting, I'm quite happy to watch and rewatch it every few years.  Think 'American Pie' only less intellectual!

It's difficult not to mention the (sort of) 'ground breaking' 'American Pie' film when talking about 'Superbad.' Any story that centres around young High School-age lads who are on a quest to - er - 'get better acquainted' with members of the opposite s3x in a short period of time, will always draw comparisons with the 'Pie' franchise.  Here, we have three boys (Jonah Hill as 'Seth,' Michael Cera as his best mate 'Evan' and Christopher Mintz-Plasse stealing every scene as 'Fogell' (or rather 'McLovin' I should say).  They are the archetypal nerds who never really know what to say around girls and are reduced to working out ways to 'trick' the fairer s3x into liking them during a graduation party before they all leave for college (that's 'University' to us Brits!).

Naturally, their plot doesn't go to plan and what follows is everything from singing (badly!) in front of drug dealers, to throwing Molotov cocktails at police cars - so you typical night out when you were about 18.  It's all in very bad taste and if you're in any way offended by s3xual-related gags, swearing and generally 'adult' situations and humour then you should stay well clear.  However, if you're in the mood for something pretty low-brow then you'll definitely find it here.

I liked the relationship between Seth and Evan.  Yes, it's hard to make stereotypical 'nerds' that different from any other depiction you've already seen, but they certainly have chemistry and you do feel as if they would be the type to hang out together in real life.  They're flawed and not totally 'heroic,' but then aren't we all?  In short - they're relatable.  However, as I mentioned it's Christopher Mintz-Plasse who is the real star of the film.  His character gets separated from the other two early on and has his own little adventure with a couple of... well, not exactly corrupt, but also hardly 'untouchable' police officers, played by Seth Rogan and Bill Hader.  Somehow, everything about this completely mismatched pairing of cops and nerd works and is a true joy to behold.  As I eluded to, it helped cement 'McLovin' as a term/name we all know and love.

Personally, for me 'Superbad' is up there with those few films that I really didn't like on first watch and yet I totally changed my opinion after time ('Anchorman' is another, curiously).  I'm not sure if this experience resonates with anyone else, but all I can say is that it's dumb, rude and - yes - super 'bad' ('bad' being slang for good in today's youth - so I'm told).

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Zombieland - Still don’t (quite) get it

Okay, so I’ve pretty much seen and enjoyed most zombie films – everything from George A Romero’s offerings to the general silly B-movies featuring shuffling corpses eating people’s brains.  So I was always going to put ‘Zombieland’ on my ‘to watch’ list.  As soon as I heard it pretty much had A-list actors in it and a theatrical release, I was definitely looking forward to it.  Plus it’s worth noting that most people who saw it loved it.

I didn’t love it.

Granted, I didn’t hate it.  It kind of left little impression on me – neither good nor bad.  Yeah, there were some humorous moments where I giggled, but, generally, I found it a bit forgettable.  As the title would suggest, the world has been overrun by the living dead and there are few humans left, desperately trying to survive.  Jessie Eisenberg is our ‘hero’ who talks us through the ‘rules’ of how to live in a world where most of the population is trying to eat you.  His voiceover is pretty funny, but after the first act it kind of drops off when he meets his ‘love interest’ and they head to a theme park.

I think the biggest flaw in it comes near the end.  I’m not sure I can mention it as it probably constitutes a ‘spoiler,’ but it’s generally to do with a weird (and rather stupid) decision made by the two girls which totally goes against anything a sane person would do in a world infested by zombies.

For some reason I just couldn’t really get over that and no matter how good the rest of the film was, that one moment of madness (involving doing something that literally drew the attention of every flesh-eater in Los Angeles to them).

After a second viewing I do like it a little more.  It’s not a bad film.  It has gore.  It has laughs and it has a good celebrity cameo from Bill Murray.  I just wish they’d changed that one (theme park-related) aspect towards the end.  It really bugs me.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Need For Speed - What Jessie Pinkman did next...

The last time most people saw Aaron Paul was when he was victoriously driving out of a compound filled with dead white supremacists.  Of course if you haven’t seen the smash TV series ‘Breaking Bad’ that will probably mean nothing to you (but I do recommend you watch it!).  However, if, like many, you enjoyed the series where Aaron Paul was an integral part, you may realise that him starring in ‘Need For Speed’ isn’t that greater step in his acting career.

He basically plays the same sort of character with a few minor differences.  This time he races fast cars, but was deliberately framed for the death of a teammate during a race and sent to jail for five seconds (okay, two years, but his sentence was severely glossed over in film-making terms!).  Now he’s out and racing across America for big money stakes (and trying to clear his name while he’s at it).

A lot of people are liking 'Need for Speed' with the ‘Fast and the Furious’ franchise.  It has similarities – mainly the car racing and high speed stunts in case you hadn’t already worked that out!  But I think there’s room for both, as 'Need For Speed' seems to manage to squeeze enough originality into the genre. 

I hear it’s even based on a computer game.  I haven’t played the game, but I’m guessing this movie adaptation is a damn sight better than 'Streetfighter' or 'Super Mario Bros,' simply because I'm guessing there isn't much 'source material' in the racing game that can be 'misinterpreted' and annoy fans.

If you’re a fan of the 'Fast and the Furious-type' movies and/or Aaron Paul in general, you should enjoy this.  Imogen Poots is the obligatory love interest and she gets better as the film goes on.  At first she seems a bit like a fish out of water (or a posh British girl trying to pass herself off as an American street racer), but, once she drops the ridiculous sunglasses, she settles into her role a little more.

Don’t dwell on some of the slight plot holes (like how Aaron Paul’s best friend seems to be able to conjure up a new aircraft to get him out of danger every time), just enjoy the high-octane jousts on the road with a bag of popcorn.

It's definitely watchable, although you can probably just have it on in the background and dip in and out of it as you play with your phone.  The second time I watched it I realised that I'd completely forgotten half of it.  Michael Keaton is even in it (a bit!) and I hadn't remembered that (just like I hadn't remembered quite how long it was - maybe the two hour run-time could have been trimmed down a little in hindsight).

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Race To Witch Mountain - Fast-paced sci-fi family action

The Rock, or `Dwayne Johnson' as he's now known, is a down on his luck cabbie in Las Vegas, that is until he accidentally picks up two young alien children who happen to be looking for a ride home. Unfortunately, his taxi doesn't go into space, but he vows to help them get back to their ship. Naturally, those shady Government agents have other plans and set out to thwart them.

If you could imagine The X-films, but on at 3pm on a Sunday afternoon, then you're sort of in the right area, only `Race to Witch Mountain' has more chases than Scully and Mulder normally have to get through. In fact, the first half of the film is pretty much one long chase. Therefore, when the film takes its foot off the pedal (so to speak) mid way through, the paces feels like it's slowed dramatically, which is a downside, but simply because the beginning has been so fast.

But, don't worry, there are more chases and action to come - With Mountain isn't an easy place to just walk into, so Dwayne's punching and kicking skills will be tested to the limit as he has to fend off not only the U.S. Government, but also an alien bounty hunter.

This is family fun. There's nothing new here, but it's one of those rare action films that the whole family can sit down and enjoy.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch - You will probably hate this film (personally, I loved it)

Let’s get it out of the way... ‘Halloween 3: Season of the Witch’ was a critical (and more importantly) commercial failure.  Basically, after the highly successful (and profitable) ‘Halloween’ and ‘Halloween 2’ people were expecting big things from the third instalment.  The first two were about a – seemingly unstoppable – killer called Michael Myers and his relentless desire to generally murder youngsters.  However, Part 3’s ultimate ‘failure’ was that it basically has nothing to do with the first two instalments.

Part 3 is a completely new story which doesn’t follow on at all.  And that was the main ‘problem’ people had with it.  So, it got immediately slated and has kind of fallen off the radar, as far as horror movies go.

However, if you don’t really look at it as a ‘Halloween’ movie and simply a stand-alone horror film, it does tend to take on a life of its own.  We join Dr Daniel Challis when a possibly mentally-unstable old man is brought into his hospital, only to be murdered in very suspicious circumstances.  Therefore, Dr Dan teams up with the man’s grieving daughter to investigate.  And, their investigation takes them to an out-of-the-way town in the middle of nowhere, run by the – somewhat creepy – Conal Cochran.

First of all, Dr Dan is a rather different hero.  He isn’t very reliable, frequently forgets to visit his ex-wife, buys his kids rubbish present, flirts with pretty much anything in a skirt in the hospital where he works and then sleeps with younger women in meets in a bar (all while wearing a handkerchief hanging out of the back of his trousers).  And, did I mention while he’s doing all this he’s also trying to save the world from cyborg robots and fiendish occult plots.

But, dodgy heroes aside, the film is actually pretty creepy.  First of all you have the music (which is done by horror legend John Carpenter) which adds to the dark, unsettling atmosphere.  Then you have Dan O’herlihy, playing arguably one of the most nasty villains in cinematic history.  He really does have a plan or two up his sleeve and it isn’t nice!  Then you have the general gore.  It’s hardly a ‘gore-fest’ but when the gore comes, it’s pretty gruesome and what isn’t gory is pretty unsettling.
If you want to give Halloween 3 a go, don’t view it as part of the franchise.  Just be in a mood for a darkly-nasty horror tale.  It’s also probably best to put at least half of your brain on hold for the duration – that way you can ignore the odd plot hole.  I don’t care what people say about it.  I still love it!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Cellular - Dated good fun

I remember watching 'Cellular' back in 2004 - a film about a woman (Kim Basinger) who gets kidnapped and imprisoned while be tortured by Jason Statham's attempt at an American accent (why didn't they just let him use his native British accent?!).  However, she manages to repair an old phone and contact a random guy on the street via his cell phone and persuade him to help her escape.  All these years and I've only just watched it again to find that this 'everyman' just so happened to be Captain America (only without his shield), Chris Evans.

'Cellular' does feel like a bit of a 'nineties' action movie (even though it was made in 2004).  I know we live in a world where film companies desperately want to push their 'shared universes' and I could really see the events of 'Cellular' all happening somewhere alongside those in other nineties classics like 'The Rock, Speed' and 'Con Air.' 'Cellular' is a bit of a 'guilty pleasure' film of mine.  It certainly doesn't take an awful lot of brainpower to sit through and, if you really want to be harsh, you can probably spend the entire runtime pulling it apart in terms of plot holes and how you would have done things massively differently to those you're watching on screen. 

I've already touched upon Jason Statham's accent.  Despite me owning almost every over-the-top action film he's ever been in, I have to say that his natural British accent suits him the best and he should just stick to that.  Kim Basinger is a very accomplished actress and yet she's little more than a prolonged damsel in distress here.  Yes, I know she does what she can to get out of her situation, but she's hardly going to be striking too many blows for women's rights with this performance.  Chris Evans, again, has shown that he's more than just a man frozen in time and capable of throwing a shield about.  Only, he doesn't do that here.  Here he's just a 'generic good looking action' guy.  William H. Macy is also a great actor to watch, but I couldn't help but think that every aspect of his (police) character had already been done (better) in 'Falling Down' courtesy of Robert Duvall.

And yet, despite all these gripes (and more!), I still can't bring myself to coming anywhere near close to hating this film.  I simply put my brain on hold and enjoy it for what it is.  Despite only being made in 2004, it's already showing its age.  It came from a world where cell phones still didn't quite have the 'hold' they currently have over our lives and using one as a major plot point in a film was actually quite new.  I know that today Basinger would probably just have tweeted something like #ivebeenkidnapped and then made a string of vlogs for her YouTube audience, but, if you can take yourself back to a world before social media and when having a cell phone was actually something quite out of the ordinary, you should enjoy this for a simple and fun action tale.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Heavenly Creatures - The 'fluffiest' murder movie ever made?

Back before film-maker Peter Jackson specialised in giant apes and armies of Orcs, believe it or not he actually made some quite low budget little films in his native New Zealand, one of which was destined to almost completely be forgotten due to his eventual rise to mega-fame with his 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy - this little gem being 'Heavenly Creatures.'

It's a story that's based on a real-life murder from the fifties that was quite notorious at the time, due to the crime being carried out by a pair of 'sweet and innocent' (?) teenage girls.  Kate Winslet makes her debut performance (in films, at least) as one half of the due, Juliet Hulme.  It's easy to see this as her 'break-through' role as she does shine with youthful exuberance and it's hard to imagine anyone so angelic-looking could be capable of such misdeeds.  Much of the attention surrounding the film centred around Winslet, due to it spring-boarding her career to A-list status.  However, it's worth noting that the film may have been totally forgotten at the time had it not been for the excellently-understated (and largely unrecognised at the time) performance by the other girl, Pauline Parker, played by Melanie Lynskey.  Lynskey is a true opposite to everything about Winslet's character, in both looks and mannerisms.  However, I guess it has something to do with that old saying 'opposites attract' that made the two come together in real life and be so powerful together when portrayed on film.

However, as good as the two leads' performances are perhaps this is the early movie that really cemented Jackson's reputation as a director who was definitely one to look out for.  Because the two main characters are so you and, because they were living in a time where children were encouraged to act like children (as opposed to today when 11 year olds are posing for pictures on Instagram) they come across as - what you might call - 'overly childlike.' This is, of course, in stark contrast to the crime they go on to commit.  They live in a fantasy world (some CGI special effects required here, but it all works well as it's not actually supposed to be real, purely - and very blatantly - in the minds of the girls) and so everything is treated like it was some sort of happy-go-lucky kids' movie.  Jackson creates an atmosphere that's brimming with 'cuteness,' while all the time underlying the tension of what is slowly building.  If I had to liken it to another film/director, I'd say it was similar to some of the output of David Lynch, who specialises in creating (seemingly) 'idyllic' settings, only for something very dark to be brooding beneath the surface.

I think potential viewers need to be aware of how the two leads act before they decide to watch the film.  I saw some complaints regarding how 'annoying' the two girls were.  As I mentioned, they came from a different time to the one we live in now and children acted differently then.  Yes, I know they go to 'extreme' lengths when presented with the reality that some families move away, therefore 'splitting up' friends in the process.  However, thinking back to my own 'teenage years' I recall some pretty (hormone-driven?) emotions flooding through me, making me think every little event was the end of the world and no one would ever understand me.  Therefore, I do give the two girls a little bit of slack for their feelings (but not their ultimate actions, obviously!).

Despite how 'sweet and innocent' this film is, it's definitely not for the faint hearted, as the ending seems to deliberately try and contrast everything that's gone before it in terms of sheer horror and brutality.  If you're into drama, real life crime, or just looking for something we a flair for creating an atmosphere, then this is definitely worth a watch. 'Lord of the Rings' it is not, but it is definitely one of Peter Jackson's finest.  Oh, and if you heard it's full of 'lesbian action,' you're in for a disappointment - that's barely part of the film at all.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Vampires - Carpenter’s last (nearly) great film

Once upon a time the name ‘John Carpenter’ was synonymous with classic action/horror films in the seventies and eighties.  Now, you barely hear from him – largely because his name has become equally linked with mundane and wasted opportunities when it comes to his output.  It’s worth noting that 1998’s (unsubtly-titled) ‘Vampires’ was his last commercially-successful film.  Personally, I liked a few of his later films, too, but this one does stand out as the last – largely accepted – decent film.  In case you’re stumped as to what this film is about, it’s about those insidious bloodsuckers – vampires – long before they twinkled in sunlight and stared moodily at the human love of their life (Okay, so there is actually a bit of human/vampire luuuv thrown in there for good measure, but, don’t worry, it’s nothing like ‘Twilight!’).

Here a grizzled James Woods plays our heroic vampire slayer, along with an indeterminate Baldwin.  When the rest of their team get butchered in a ‘routine’ slaying procedure, they smell a set-up and start their own investigation.  So, if you know anything about vampires (and, face it… whether you’re a fan of the monster or not, you know the basic rules) you’ll see all the tropes here – the stakes, the bursting into flames in the sunlight and the general Gothic demeanour of the undead.  Now, it’s by no way a high-budget affair.  The sets are just regular places around the mid-west of America and what money went into the production must have gone into the sparsely interspersed gory moments.  Therefore, if you casually watch part of it, you may be lured into thinking it’s just another low budget straight-to-DVD horror flick.  However, what possibly raises this above every other similar film of the day is the setting.  I’ve mentioned that there aren’t many fabulous and spectacular sets designed just for the film.  It’s set basically in a modern day ‘Wild West.’ Therefore, if you came across this film and there wasn’t anyone sucking someone else’s blood, you may be tricked into assuming that it was a cowboy film.  This does give it a bit of a look and feel of its own and probably went some way to save the film, but, the location is probably just a minor point, the star is James Woods – and he carries the film completely.

James Woods is at his grumpy best.  Don’t expect a light-handed touch when dealing with everyone from the local priest to the highest vampire in the land.  He’s basically an anti-hero who doesn’t let much stand in his way between him and his slaying activities.  Woods star alongside Sheryl Lee (best known for dying a lot in TV’s ‘Twin Peaks’ and, as I said, some Baldwin or other, plus your typical tall, pale dude with long black hair for them to battle.  But, it’s Woods all the way.  Technically, there’s nothing special about this film and nothing that you haven’t seen before in any other vampire-related movie.  However, if you like your horror gritty, realistic and not pulling any punches then you should get something out of this (either that or you’re just a fan of James Woods, then this should be at the top of your ‘to see’ list!).

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

The Colony – Surprisingly watchable B-movie

If this film was released in the cinema, you may come away regretting paying for having to sit through that.  But it wasn't.  It was released straight to DVD.  And, among the other offerings that find their way into `bargain bins' up and down the country, this one actually stands out – at least a little bit.

Basically, the world has suffered another ice age and the few survivors are left to fend from themselves in their `colonies.' The first thing that makes this movie nice is the setting.  Yes, snow is pretty bleak and uninspirational, but it works well here and adds to the feel.  Plus you have Lawrence Fishburne and Bill Paxton, who both turn in fine performances.  Fishburne is definitely the lead and, if nothing else ‘The Colony’ is an example of how he can carry a film on his own.  I’ve always been a fan of Bill Paxton (like so many, since ‘Aliens,’ but then the set for the colony itself looks  like it's been inspired by 'Hadley's Hope' from 'Aliens') and I would have liked to see him in the film a bit more.  Sadly, his role was quite small compared to how he’s promoted on all marketing material surrounding this film.

The story is slower in the first half and then changes pace when the action kicks off, so be prepared for that.  However, I thought that the film probably should have been called ‘The OTHER Colony!’  It begins with the colony where all our protagonists are, but it doesn’t take long before a trio of cast-members decide to leave here to go and investigate another colony that they’ve lost contact with.  Therefore, all the characters we’ve been introduced to are cast aside for what is basically the middle of the film when the action starts.  It's also a bit of a mish-mash of other movies (you can play `spot the movie rip-off' a fair few times - I noticed bits borrowed from ‘Day of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead’ (2004) and ‘28 Days Later’), but you have to remember that it is just a B-movie.

Our heroes soon find themselves coming face to face with a load of expendable bad guys who like to eat people rather than save their own species.  The ‘lead’ bad guy does tend to simply roar a lot rather than offer any real ‘motivation’ for his slide in humanity, hence why I saw this film as a weird ‘zombie-like’ story (just with cannibals instead of the undead).

It may be that `The Colony' is one of those movies that has a concept which actually exceeds its capabilities.  Normally, when I watch a movie, I tend to want to cut out about half an hour of pointless bits from the middle.  However, here's a film that I thought should have been longer.  There are quite a few plot threads which could have been expanded on.  However, because of the short running time (probably due to budget constraints), the film does feel a little rushed.

If you accept it for what it is - a B-movie - then you should enjoy it.  It wouldn't stand up against Hollywood's big budget action movies, but it's not a bad way to spend an hour and a half of your time.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Made Men - It gets better

I have to say that I wasn’t enjoying ‘Made Men’ for the first act.  About the first half hour was pretty dull.  James Belushi plays Bill ‘The Mouth’ Mannuci – an informant who’s living under the ‘witness protection scheme’ in the deep south of America after he dropped his mob boss in it.  However, his happy new life doesn’t go as planned when his former associates track him down in the belief that he’s still hanging on to millions of ill-gotten money.

What follows is – effectively – the four gangsters constantly beating on him while they try and get the whereabouts of the money out of him.  My initial reaction was ‘how much punishment can one rather overweight kind of guy take?’ And take it he does.  Most people (in better physical condition) would probably have cracked (or died!) long ago, yet Belushi just keeps on coming back with one smart and defiant quip after the next.  This kind of annoyed me, but then he’s hardly a ‘sympathetic’ hero, so I guess his punishment fits his arrogance.  Finally, they stop torturing him and take him on a road trip.  Then things start getting a little better.

What starts off pretty dull changes into a kind of action/chase movie as he Belushi does his best to evade and escape his captors.  It’s hardly intellectual stuff, but there are plenty of pretty cool shoot-outs and car chases to keep us ‘mindless males’ entertained.  The plot gets a little better as more characters are introduced – all of which are completely amoral and only interested in whether they can get their hands on Belushi’s alleged loot.

Timothy Dalton is good as the Sherriff, but what he brings to the film, the ‘generic British guy’ who’s somehow been thrown in there as part of the gang seems totally over the top and in the wrong film.

Made Men will never be a classic, but that doesn’t mean it’s not fun.  If you’re looking for a ‘no brainer’ where you’re not bothered about actually liking any of the characters, this one could be for you.  It’s one of those film that you’ll probably find on the telly late at night and just stick with it.  Probably one to watch first, but you may not bother buying it.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

The 6th Day - Could have been a classic

Spot the odd one out: ‘Terminator 2, Predator, Total Recall, The 6th Day.’ Yes, it’s 2000’s ‘The 6th Day.’ The others are all regarded as action classics of their day which most people are aware of, regardless of whether they’ve seen them, or particularly like Arnold Schwarzenegger or not.  However, even fans may have forgotten ‘The 6th Day’ entirely.  I didn’t see it at the cinema (and I’m a die-hard Arnie fan!).  I saw it a good few years later on video and was actually pleasantly surprised.  Although, I can see why it was always destined to fly under the radar.

For a start it was released in the year 2000.  This was hardly ‘peak time’ during Arnie’s  time in centre stage.  I would imagine that if it was released in the late eighties/early nineties then it would have gathered much more attention at the Box Office.  So an ‘Arnold Schwarzenegger’ film in 2000 wouldn’t attract many new fans, but what about his existing audience (like me!)?  Well, we grew older by then and were probably less inclined to go to the cinema as much.  And, those who did go to see it often levelled the same criticism at it, i.e. it’s a bit too similar to his previous classic, ‘Total Recall.’ Now, I can see where they’re coming from here.  The ‘set up’ is similar.  In ‘Total Recall’ you have an ‘everyman’ slowing finding out that his life isn’t what he thought it was and then getting chased by shady forces through a sci-fi setting and – er – that brief and vague synopsis could be used to describe ‘The 6th Day’ too.  Yeah, there are more than a few similarities with the set-up, but I also think that there’s enough here that’s different to make it not just a ‘poor man’s Total Recall.’

Now, I briefly mentioned that it’s set in a ‘futuristic setting.’ Okay, admittedly not far in the future, but enough that you need a reasonable budget to make it look believable.  Perhaps the budget all went on Arnie’s paycheque?  There are these space-age helicopters which transform into jet planes and every time they come on the screen they look about as convincing as a cut-scene from a Playstation 2 game.  In fact, the whole film feels like it’s been ‘made-for-TV’ as the sets are, well, so ‘set-like’ that you’d think you were watching a low budget soap opera, not a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster.

So, it’s a film released at the wrong time for its major star, it looks cheap and kind of rips of a (arguably better) piece of work.  It didn’t really get the hate that some films do, but it got a hell of a lot of indifference.  And this is a shame, because it’s rather fun.  It’s tone is actually quite light and never feels bogged down in ‘darkness’ like so many modern action films which strive to be gritty and realistic (‘Bourne’ Franchise and Daniel Craig’s ‘Bond’ – I’m looking at you!).  There are plenty of one-liners and you have to suspend your disbelief a great deal to enjoy it.  Yes, Arnie despatches hordes of bad guys without breaking a sweat.  Realistic?  Hell, no!  But this is Arnie!  He does this all the time – we all know that.  Deal with it.  Trust me, you’ll enjoy it a damn sight more if you do!

‘The 6th Day’ really is a film out of its time.  While action films were getting more and more serious, it sits firmly in that over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek era that Arnie owned back in his day.  I keep using the work ‘fun’ to describe it, because that’s all it is.  Good, action-packed, popcorn fun.  Who can’t laugh at Arnie killing off the baddies, only to have them cloned back in the next scene (at great personal expense and annoyance to the evil villain in charge!) ready to be killed yet again.

Don’t expect a classic example of film-making.  Don’t even expect much originality.  Just expect Arnie doing what he does best – killing bad guys and then saying a dodgy one-liner.

Oh, and if you’re a fan of ‘The Walking Dead’ – ‘Merle’ is in it, too.  He’s always good to watch being bad, but the true stand-out role is a plastic child’s doll-toy which steals every scene (she was awesome – odd that we haven’t seen her career take off since!).

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Zombeavers - If you don’t like this it’s kind of your fault

This film is entitled ‘Zombeavers.’ Think about that for a moment.  Cute little woodland animals turned into bloodthirsty undead beasts (who then go on to plague the living hell out of three scantily-clad young maidens).  If you think that sounds like possibly the worst idea since sharks caught in a tornado then it’s best you never ever think of watching this film.  If, however, you can lower your mind significantly to appreciate it, you may just get something out of it.

I had had a long day and I needed something totally un-intellectual to relax my mind.  This fitted the bill just perfectly.  Believe it or not, I do watch somewhat deeper films, but I totally wasn’t in the mood for something intense and meaningful.  About the level of my IQ was laughing at badly animated puppets with glowing eyes chasing girls in bikinis.

This film is daft and, most importantly, it knows it is.  It never tries to be serious and never tries to be anything but what it is – daft, silly fun.  Although, saying that, it's the zombie beavers that are the UNserious part of the film.  They're so (deliberately, surely?) badly animated and obviously puppets that you can't possibly be scared of them.  Yet all the (human) cast play it totally straight and never crack a gag or anything throughout the whole run-time.

It has no budget.  The special effects are anything but special.  It has no big name actors.  Those who have turned up are largely there for their good looks.  And the dialogue isn’t great at the best of times.  And yet, with all these down-points, I still can’t bring myself to hate it.

So, if you’ve had a long day and want to relax in front of a film where you can totally put your brain ‘on hold’ for an hour and half, then this is the one for you.  If you think you’re going to be in for a story filled with excellent character development and broad story arcs the you may need to skip this one.  Plus it has an amusing cameo from comedian Bill Burr - what more could you possibly want?

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Observe And Report (2009) - The seldom-seen `dark side' of cuddly Seth Rogen  

I'm writing this review after a second viewing of Observe and Report. I've always been a fan of Seth Rogan's light-hearted (if adult) humour, so when I first saw this, I was a little let down. The cuddly fat man we can't help but root for has been replaced here by a bi-polar mall security guard who's temper frequently gets him into trouble.

It wasn't until the second viewing (when I wasn't expecting some sort of sweet-natured feel-good comedy, like the 40 Year Old Virgin or Knocked Up) that I really appreciated it. I also like my humour dark. And, if you're in the mood for something pretty grisly and taboo-breaking, you may just get something out of this. Basically, if you haven't laughed in the first ten minutes, turn it off and watch something more mainstream.

As I mentioned earlier, Rogen plays Ronnie Barnhardt, a mall security guard with delusions of grandeur. He thinks he's the hero, but the audience knows otherwise - which is where most of the humour derives from. He also has bi-polar disorder - a mental condition that means he's quite tolerable one minute (and we, the audience, can also unwittingly think the `old loveable' Rogen is back. Then, cut to the next scene and he's battering some kid with a skateboard.

Observe and Report is laden with poignancy and subtle humour. Basically, only watch if you're in the mood for black comedy and laced with taboos. Nothing is sacred here - expect racism, full frontal male untidy, date rape and plenty of violence and mental illness.

If you think you can find the funny side to all that, Observe and Report may just be for you.

Besides, it has a wicked soundtrack (if you're into classic rock).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Pacific Rim - Release your inner child (and enjoy)

Okay, being a fully grown man, perhaps I should have grown out of enjoying watching big, over the top monsters smashing big, over the top robots to bits by now. Sadly, I haven't (which also probably explains why I'm single).

If you're looking at Pacific Rim (a film where big, over the top monsters come out from a portal at the bottom of the ocean and start laying waste to our cities, therefore meaning Earth creates an army of big, over the top robots to stop them) on an action-only basis, then it's a sure fire winner. Yes, I loved the action - it was truly amazing special effects wise and I was instantly a twelve-year-old boy again.

Sadly, I'm also a thirty-six year old adult, which means that my logical brain does demand some sort of cohesive plot to tie a two-hour film together. This is where Pacific Rim fell down. It seemed to take every action cliché from the last two decades and put them in here. A fair part of the story is told in a `Lord of the Rings-style' monologue at the very beginning of the film, eliminating the need for any complex plots - it just tells us what's been going down. Then we have the need to recruit the burned-out ex robot pilot who's quit the service, but is the only hope we have now (a cliché so old it was lampooned in Hot Shots Part Deux), plus, when our hero does step up to the challenge, he's met with suspicion and downright hostility from the other pilots (think Team America of all films!). Then throw in the obligatory `love interest' and dialogue that seems as if it's been completely lifted from Independence Day and you have a weird mish-mash of action films.

However, all this may be cliché, but you still have the epic battles to fall back on. I forgave all this and just let my inner child enjoy itself. The only real downside were the (yes, clichéd) scientists. Seriously... they're `uber-geeky' to such an extreme they wouldn't look out of place in a cartoon. In my opinion, if you're looking for a silly, over the top, all action film then you'll enjoy what's on offer here (I just fast-forwarded the scientists in the end - they could well be related to Jar Jar Binks - they're that bad!).

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Dagon - Not bad, but not quite there

‘Dagon’ is one of those films where I watch and yet still can’t really make up my mind about.  I didn’t hate it.  It has its good points, yet overall there didn’t really seem like there was enough story to flesh it out (even to its quite average ninety minute runtime).

It’s about an American couple whose boat gets shipwrecked off a remote Spanish island.  When they get to shore they find the locals are hardly the hospitable types.  It kind of reminded me of ‘The Wicker Man,’ i.e. outsiders who are up against the whole of a town.

My main problem with the film was that very little happens.  Once the couple arrive on the island, they’re quickly separated and we’re left with just the man.  Pretty much the whole of the middle part of the film is him being chased from one dark and creepy location to the next.  He’s all on his own and doesn’t really have anyone to interact with, therefore we don’t really get to know him that well and know that he’s going to make it out of each area, simply because the film would end if he didn’t.  He does meet one local, but the old man talks with such a strong accent I actually had to put the subtitles on to understand him!

Seriously, if you were watching Dagon on DVD, you could skip a few chapters in the middle and you wouldn’t miss anything ‘story-wise,’ just a few creepy scenes here and there.  The atmosphere is one of the plus points.  The story is nicely creepy and the monsters are well done.  It’s just a pity not much happens for the majority of the movie.

The last act is a bit more dramatic and they’ve saved some of the best gore for last, but it’s too little too late to turn what could have elevated an okay film to a really classic one.  Bottom line, it’s okay, but because there’s so little story, I probably wouldn’t watch it again because I can remember everything about it.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Blitz - Statham (made for TV)

I'll start by saying that I'm a huge Jason 'The Stath' Statham fan (sorry!) and I pretty much watch everything he's in.  I'm well aware that 90% of his output his hardly going to be 'high brow' entertainment with deep character development and interlinking character arcs.  What I normally expect is a gruff, bald man punching bad guys (and most recently giant sharks!).  And, normally, I get what I sit down for and come away completely fulfilled.  However, with 'Blitz' there just didn't seem to be enough there to warrant what was - effectively - a 'big budget film.'

I'm used to seeing The Stath locking horns with numerous baddies and wiping them out, not to mention loads of action, fight scenes and that oversize shark again.  In short… I see Jason Statham as a major Hollywood action star and don't really see him in what seemed like such a 'small role.' And, no, I don't mean he only has a 'bit part' in 'Blitz.' He is the film's star after all and there's probably no one else you'll remember seeing in anything (oh, I think 'The Governor' from 'The Walking Dead' pops up).

Blitz' is set in London where a serial killer targets cops.  The Stath is the copper tasked with bringing him to justice.  And that's about it.  The killer ('Blitz' as he calls himself, if you're wondering where the title comes from) isn't particularly threatening.  He just walks up to police officers on the street and shoots them.  There's no 'Se7en' style performing intricate acts with the bodies to make any sort of political point/message.  Nor does he do anything sick with his victims after he's killed them, like you may expect from someone like Hannibal Lecter.  He  just kills them then wanders off.

Plus there's no real action to speak of.  The film begins well enough.. We see The Stath beat up a gang of muggers and that's possibly the high-point of the film.  Okay, so there are a couple of punch-ups and about one major chase (on foot), but that's about it.  I know, I know, some people will say that this is a 'cops and robbers' movie, not 'The Expendables 4,' but when you have an action star famed for over the top films like 'Crank' and 'The Transporter,' I just expected more.

However, I could have lived with the lack of action if there were some memorable characters to speak of.  The killer isn't frightening - he's just annoying.  There are a few other characters who are there to only speak in cliches.  Seriously, that's what wound me up the most about the film - the dialogue.  It's like if you had to list fifty cliches you'd hear in a British cop film then you'll find them all here.  Even The Stath struggles to make his lines sound believable.  He’s okay when he’s exchanging a little bit of banter with his – obviously ‘mismatched’ – partner (a gay police officer who also has a tendency to take the law into his own hands), but that’s about it on the dialogue front.

Basically, the film is so bland that it could have been made for TV.  In fact, if I'd come across it on late night TV (minus Jason Statham), I'd probably just watch about twenty minutes of it and then turn it off - it's that average.  I know I'm ripping on it, but I didn't hate it entirely.  Jason Statham is about the only good thing in it and, as I'm a die-hard fan, I could appreciate it simply for that.  However, coming from a star who makes so many great, fun, ridiculously over-the-top action films, I've already got plenty more (and, of course, better!) films of his to watch, rather than waste my time on this one again.  Sorry, Jason - please punch more mammoth, aquatic sea monsters next time!

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Edtv - Not 'the T-word'

It seems an unwritten rule in Hollywood that every few years two films get released that are basically identical, then one reigns supreme and is critically lauded and the other sinks without a trace - 'Armageddon' vs 'Deep Impact,' 'The Illusionist' vs 'The Prestige,' 'Volcano' vs 'Dante's Peak' and so on.  'Edtv' came out in 1999, only a year later than - the classic - Jim Carrey vehicle, 'The Truman Show.' I know technically 'Edtv' was 'late to the party,' but I'd wager that the two films were in development at the same time and 'The Truman Show' simply pipped Ed to the post.  Anyway, everyone loved 'The Truman Show' and 'Edtv' kind of felt like a poor man's rip-off.  Which is a shame, because it's actually quite enjoyable (and different enough to deserve at least a little bit of love!).

I'll try not to mention 'The Truman Show' any more than I have to when comparing 'Edtv,' but I will say that the premises are actually different enough to warrant being enjoyed separately. 'The Truman Show' is almost a bit of an alternate reality set in a dark, dystopian world whereas 'Edtv' is definitely of its time (and actually could also be made today and not be that different!).  A TV network decides the next 'big thing' in TV would simple be to follow an American 'everyman' around twenty-four hours a day for a month and just see where it goes.

The 'average Joe' (or 'Ed' to be precise) in question just so happens to be Matthew McConaughey, who spends his days playing pool with his brother (a criminally-underused Woody Harrelson) and working in a video rental store (remember those?!).  It doesn't sound like much in terms of 9must see TV,' but - naturally - events start to spiral out of control in his life and he begins to see what 'the dark side' of fame really is - as do we, the audience.

I always see the year 2000 as the one that 'defined' what we refer to as 'reality TV' ('Big Brother' began here in the UK) and 'Edtv' certainly fits into what we'd still call 'reality TV' (even if it doesn't contain any prompts for viewers to 'phone in' and determine the show's next move).  Perhaps that's why the film never became bigger than it was?  Because just one year before Davina McCall took over our small screens here in the UK, the prospect of something like 'Edtv' was too preposterous to be real.

I've watched 'Edtv' a fair few times now and enjoyed it every time.  I do see it as the film-makers trying to warn the audience about the dangers of fame and how it might not be everything it's promoted to live up to, plus - retrospectively - it's also a warning against how low TV can sink.  However, a parable's only interesting and not very demanding of re-watching, yet 'Edtv' is - and this is mainly down to the cast.  Of course it's Matthew McConaughey's baby.  He plays a loveable everyman just perfectly and we can't help but root for him, even when he makes mistakes (that we all probably would if thrust into the limelight so unexpectedly and deliberately without proper media training as to how to deal with it.

Because it's all about Matthew McConaughey the secondary characters are quite as well fleshed-out as they could be.  I've already mentioned how Woody Harrelson probably could have been given a bigger role.  He seems to have natural chemistry with McConaughey and yet seems to basically disappear for the second half of the movie.  Rob Reiner is - basically - the bad-guy and could have been used more, whereas Dennis Hopper only pops up for a couple of scenes here and there, which is a bit of a waste for such a talented actor.  Same goes for Martin Landau.  Jenna Elfman is the obligatory 'love interest' for Ed and - again - she's kind of side-lined for much of the film in favour of having her character develop - much of what happens to her you'll see coming a mile off.

If there is a surprise performance, it comes from Ellen DeGeneres as a long-suffering TV executive.  She's probably the character who we root for the most after Ed.  We see her conflict in working for a company that makes her promote people by destroying their lives for the enjoyment of the masses versus not wanting to be part of something so low-brow and insidious.

If I was going to offer a criticism it's that the ending is a little rushed and certain things seem to just work themselves out in order to wrap the film up in its allocated run-time.  But, that's a minor gripe.  Don't let people tell you that 'Edtv' is just a 'Truman Show' knock-off.  It's more than that.  Even with the - seemingly never ending - reality TV on our screens today, I can't ever see a 'Truman Show' style situation ever really happening. 'Edtv' on the other hand... well that's probably coming to a network near you very soon!  Oh, and if the fact that Elizabeth Hurley is in it puts you off, don't worry - she's not in it much and isn't that bad at all.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

A Fish Called Wanda - P-p-p-perfect f-f-film

There are some films that probably shouldn't work… and yet they just do.  I often wonder (or should that be 'Wanda?') how 'A Fish Called Wanda' was pitched to the studio?  An English barrister falls in love with a jewel thief and must go about double-crossing her former CIA lover while a man with a horrendous stutter accidentally murders every innocent animal he comes into contact with.  I think that's what they call a 'hard sell.' However, I guess when the barrister is played by John Cleese, his lover Jamie Lee Curtis, the insane ex CIA spook Kevin Kline and the speech-impaired Michael Palin, it somehow manages to come together in the 'perfect storm' of crime, comedy and classic film-making.

I've often heard films being criticised when they 'split genres,' i.e. when a outright comedy film suddenly tries to be all serious and dramatic etc.  This can kind of wrench a viewer out of the world they were currently enjoying.  However, 'A Fish Called Wanda' seems to be able to flit between genres effortlessly and without any jarring effect on the audience.  I guess it's mainly a comedy, yet it encompasses not just strong elements of a 'crime/heist' genre, but ultimately it's a romance, too (and drama!).

Despite all four main cast-members actually being pretty bad representations of human beings (you could argue that Michael Palin's 'Stuttering Ken' is a sympathetic character, but he seems quite able to murder innocent old ladies in order to save his friend's skin!), we do care about them all.  Even the psychopathic 'Otto' (Kevin Kline, who deservedly won a 'Best Supporting Actor' Oscar for his outlandish performance) is a tragic sort of person who we can't help but enjoy watching just to see how bonkers he's going to get and eventually what comeuppance awaits him.

I would say that this is a film that 'appeals to everyone,' but it definitely covers 'adult themes' meaning you're going to have to be okay with s3x, violence and plenty of foul language - not to mention some cruelty to animals (no matter how blatantly comic it's portrayed!).  But the best thing about 'A Fish Called Wanda' is that I originally watched it in the eighties and I loved it.  Now, around thirty years later I find myself loving it and laughing along as much as I did back then.  It's almost as timeless as 'Fawlty Towers' and could well have been filmed today (minus the reference to Margaret Thatcher and the ease that the characters are able to infiltrate Heathrow airport's security - well, it was pre 9/11 I guess).

10/10 The Monty Python Knights of Camelot are currently looking for this

The Good, the Bad and the Aliens (mainly good though!)

Mixing genres that don't normally mix can be risky at best of times.  Sure, put sci-fi with horror or thriller, but westerns?  It's a gamble.  Luckily, in this case, it's a gamble that WORKED.

Cowboys and Aliens - just by the title you don't need much of an explanation as to the plot.  Basically though, it's a B-movie that's elevated to the heights of an A-movie courtesy of some top notch stars (our very own Daniel Craig - doing a passable American accent and, of course, the ever great Harrison Ford) and a decent budget.

The proper stars and budget naturally make a great movie with plenty of fun (if a little stereotyped) characters and realistic-looking (not to mention nasty) aliens to fight.

The film's longer than the average ninety minutes, but don't let that put you off.  The opening half hour establishes the characters nicely and from then on the action flows.

Aliens who fly around in space ships and pack big laser guns versus cowboy with six-shooters and Indians with spears and bows and arrows makes for the perfect mismatch.  You can't help but root for the humans.  They do a great job and it's awesome to watch - the perfect popcorn flick.  The only thing missing from the film was a part for Sigourney Weaver.  I think it would have been great to see `Ripley' riding with cowboys while slapping the odd alien along the way!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch - You will probably hate this film (personally, I loved it)

Let’s get it out of the way... ‘Halloween 3: Season of the Witch’ was a critical (and more importantly) commercial failure.  Basically, after the highly successful (and profitable) ‘Halloween’ and ‘Halloween 2’ people were expecting big things from the third instalment.  The first two were about a – seemingly unstoppable – killer called Michael Myers and his relentless desire to generally murder youngsters.  However, Part 3’s ultimate ‘failure’ was that it basically has nothing to do with the first two instalments.

Part 3 is a completely new story which doesn’t follow on at all.  And that was the main ‘problem’ people had with it.  So, it got immediately slated and has kind of fallen off the radar, as far as horror movies go. 

However, if you don’t really look at it as a ‘Halloween’ movie and simply a stand-alone horror film, it does tend to take on a life of its own.  We join Dr Daniel Challis when a possibly mentally-unstable old man is brought into his hospital, only to be murdered in very suspicious circumstances.  Therefore, Dr Dan teams up with the man’s grieving daughter to investigate.  And, their investigation takes them to an out-of-the-way town in the middle of nowhere, run by the – somewhat creepy – Conal Cochran.

First of all, Dr Dan is a rather different hero.  He isn’t very reliable, frequently forgets to visit his ex-wife, buys his kids rubbish present, flirts with pretty much anything in a skirt in the hospital where he works and then sleeps with younger women in meets in a bar (all while wearing a handkerchief hanging out of the back of his trousers).  And, did I mention while he’s doing all this he’s also trying to save the world from cyborg robots and fiendish occult plots.

But, dodgy heroes aside, the film is actually pretty creepy.  First of all you have the music (which is done by horror legend John Carpenter) which adds to the dark, unsettling atmosphere.  Then you have Dan O’herlihy, playing arguably one of the most nasty villains in cinematic history.  He really does have a plan or two up his sleeve and it isn’t nice!  Then you have the general gore.  It’s hardly a ‘gore-fest’ but when the gore comes, it’s pretty gruesome and what isn’t gory is pretty unsettling.
If you want to give Halloween 3 a go, don’t view it as part of the franchise.  Just be in a mood for a darkly-nasty horror tale.  It’s also probably best to put at least half of your brain on hold for the duration – that way you can ignore the odd plot hole.  I don’t care what people say about it.  I still love it!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Gallowwalkers - Alas poor Wesley, I knew him well

I think most Wesley Snipes fans will always remember him best from things like ‘White Men Can’t Jump, Passenger 57, Demolition Man’ and the ‘Blade’ trilogy.  It’s because of these fun little classics that I chose to watch ‘Gallowwalkers.’ I did a little research before I sat down and watched it.  I saw it had a (current) rating of about 3/10, but I thought, ‘Hey... it’s got Wesley Snipes in it – it can’t be THAT bad!’

How wrong I was.

Normally, when you review a film, you try and get across a brief summary of the plot.  I can’t though here.  I really didn’t understand what was going on.

It’s a Western, only with zombies in (parts of) it.  Plus the baddie has no skin.  I think he came back from the dead.  Snipes is... someone who did something during his tragic childhood and now has to kill people.  Mainly undead people I think. 

And that’s about it.

What follows is one – seemingly random – scene after the next where something happens.  Only we don’t really feel any one scene is actually connected to whatever’s gone on before.

Basically, it’s a mess.

And it’s cheap.  It’s possibly one of the cheapest-looking films I’ve ever seen.  Most of it looks like it’s been filmed in a parking lot somewhere out the back of a convenience store in Texas.

And don’t get me started on the dialogue.  That’s so bad I won’t even go any further.

Just believe the reviews on this one.  It’s as bad as 90% of people say it is.  And they’re right.  Just avoid and remember Snipes at his best.

1/10 This might as well have been written, directed and produced by Uwe Boll

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh - Could have been sooo much worse

‘Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' is an absolute masterpiece of cinema.  Well, sort of.  No, it's not that good really if you're looking at it as a stand-alone film, but - in terms of 'horror sequels' (i.e. a set of films which get dramatically worse with each new instalment) - it's not that bad.  Yes, of course the original was better - how many sequels really do improve?  But, and I say again, it's a horror sequel, therefore it should probably be afforded a little more slack than most films.

In the first outing we're introduced to the urban legend of 'Candyman' - a sinister figure who appears in the mirror behind you if you say his name three times.  And then he helps you brush your teeth.  Or kill you.  In fact, mainly the killing part.  And in quite a grisly fashion with a hook and much angry violence.  Anyway, he's back and people are still yapping his handle at their bathroom mirrors in order to prove the legend is merely a myth.  And then they die.  Unless the story dictates that he doesn't want you dead.

In fact, this is just what happens to our hapless nineties heroine, played by Kelly Rowan.  She only goes and stutters his name in the mirror five times, only to find he wants more from her than to open her neck up with a hook.  And so, she has to find a way of banishing him, or just generally getting the hell away from him before he slaughters everyone she comes in contact with. 
Yes, hardly an inspired horror plot, but its main saving grace is Candyman himself, Tony Todd.  No matter how good the original was, my gripe with it was that he wasn't in it enough.  Here, his part has been well and truly beefed up to give him much more screen time and he seems to be really enjoying his stint as the deliciously-evil and sadistic monster and he ends up giving a performance that will cement him as a horror villain on a par with Freddy Kruger, Pinhead and Jason Vorhees.

Even though the film looks a little dated by today's standards and, judging by the hair and clothes, there's no doubt it was filmed in the nineties, the film-makes didn't seem to scrimp on the special effects.  And, when I say effects, I basically mean gore!  And, isn't that what most of us horror fans come to see?  I don't think any 'claret-lovers' should leave a viewing of 'Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' feeling short-changed regarding the amount of body parts sent flying during the film's runtime!

Like I say, it's not perfect, but it is a sequel to a far superior horror gem.  Don't be too harsh on it and, if you like horror films in general, you should get something out of this, even if it's just an appreciation of just how well Tony Todd can command his presence on screen.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Assault on Precinct 13 - Pretty entertaining remake

The original 1970s 'Assault on Precinct 13' was hailed as a 'classic' John Carpenter film and is still held up as an example of tense, action film-making from the era.  I didn't think that much of it.  I've only seen it the once and I thought it was okay.  I remember the basic story - a police station comes under siege from shady and overpowering external forces and the cops and robbers trapped inside must band together in order to survive.  About the only thing I can remember was that everyone made a really big thing about the guns having 'silencers' on them.  Maybe it was because I was watching it in the eighties and silencers were common by then - I don't know.

Anyway, from what I can remember, the 2005 remake follows the premise pretty well.  Ethan Hawke is a cop who was injured in the line of duty and now spends his days running the sleepy Precinct 13.  However, one New Year's Eve, his team of tired old coppers get more than they bargained for when an infamous criminal played by Laurence Fishburne arrives in a prison bus that has been diverted there due to poor weather.  Now, everyone finds themselves under fire from rogue coppers (with more than just silencers!).

I've mentioned the two main characters, Ethan Hawke and Laurence Fishburne (who probably shines more than his 'heroic' opposite!).  Naturally, they're given the bulk of the screen time and a certain degree of character development, but there are actually quite a few others there as well.  Some - semi - familiar faces who are also stuck in the building while head crooked cop Gabriel Byrne has his men lay waste to the building in order to get his man are Brian Dennehy, Maria Bello and John Leguizamo to name the main ones.  Because there are so many cops/crims alongside the principal cast members you could be forgiven for thinking that they're only there to be wiped out and, you're - sort of - be right.  Many get what's coming to them (and some who definitely don't deserve what they get!), but they all feel like real characters rather than just 'filler' cast members there only to die.  I'm not saying that a few of them don't descend into complete stereotypes at one stage or another, but they're all reasonable enough to be at least partially memorable.

There's a fair bit of gore and strong language contained in this film and it deserves its 'mature' rating as it certainly doesn't pull any punches.  So you need to be okay with plenty of the red stuff flying out of the (numerous!) headshots that seem to crop up here.

Over the years I've watched this film at least four times.  I'm not saying it's the most amazing film ever, but it is just a simple, entertaining action film (that's quite tense and works well as a 'siege movie').  I'm aware that people who loved the original don't really approve of the remake treatment being applied to this (I have my own gripes with enough remakes of my favourite films, too!), but, for someone like me who, for whatever reason, never really 'got' the original, it's actually quite a lot of fun if you're in the mood for something like this.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Flatliners (1990) - Yeah, pretty spooky

I watched 'Flatliners' back in the early nineties when it first came out then completely ignored the pointless 2017 remake and didn't watch it for almost thirty years.  I couldn't remember much about it, short of the basic premise of how a group of young medical students are experimenting with 'near death' experiences.  However, I think I actually enjoyed it more today than I did all that time ago.

Modern' horror seems to fall into one of the following categories: zombie film, slasher film, or one of those films where something spooky happens to a family and no one believes them until some CGI demon is staring them in the face.  Perhaps the reason I enjoyed 'Flatliners' is because it doesn't fit in to any of those supernatural sub-genres.  There is certainly a threat coming from some other world, but the characters need to establish exactly what it is on their own and it's not simply some monster than can be easily-banished with the help of an old priest and a young priest.

The cast is as good as it's going to get for 1990, mainly consisting of icons (of their day) such as Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon and an indeterminate Baldwin.  Now, they could all headline a film on their own, so getting them all together in one place definitely makes it a bit of an 'ensemble cast.' Also, they all get their own individual stories which allow us to get to know them a little better than some later movies with multiple stars (poor Oliver Platt really couldn't compete with that quartet and gets the rawest deal of on-screen time!).

I suppose the general look and feel seems a little dated now.  There's a hell of a lot of neon on display which, combined with the hair and costumes, really does pinpoint this film as a late eighties/early nineties offering.  You really don't realise how much fashion has changed until you watch 'Flatliners!' However, for all the neon and smoke bellowing up from unseen points in the floor (seriously, if you played some sort of 'drinking game' where you took a swig every time you saw a weirdly-placed plume of smoke, you'd be out of your head before the title card came on screen!), director Joel Schumacher does a very good job at creating a unique and creepy atmosphere.

If you're looking for a spooky movie to watch with friends that doesn't involve flesh-eating cannibals, torture p0rn or men in masks with chainsaws, then give this a go.  You should become immune for the huge haircuts after a while.  Yes, the 'logic' of what they're actually doing may seem a little questionable, but it was the eighties and we all played with near death experiences back then - trust me!

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

A Lonely Place to Die - Don't believe the negative reviews!

I remember when I first saw 'A Lonely Place to Die' I really enjoyed it, then I read the reviews and it seemed that it was one of those films that you either love or hate.  It's about a group of friends who spend their free time climbing crazy heights up mountains (each to their own, eh?).  Then, one day, when they're out in the middle of nowhere (and there's absolutely NO cell phone coverage - seasoned horror fans will know that's a bad sign in itself!), they come across a young girl imprisoned underground in the middle of a wood.  Naturally, being the good folk they are they set her free.  However, those who captured her in the first place don't take too kindly to this sort of 'meddling.'

It seems that the people who didn't like the film all say the same thing: that it starts off well, but goes downhill in at roughly the midway mark.  I guess I can - sort of - see where they're coming from.  The beginning of the film starts by building up the relationships between the characters due to the general banter between them all.  And we find ourselves genuinely caring about the group of friends and not want to see them brutally gunned down or plummet out of the sky off a cliff and embed themselves in the rocks below.  However, I wonder where the people who didn't like the film saw it heading?  What follows - and I hope this isn't too much of a 'spoiler' - is a cat and mouse-like chase between the nasties who imprisoned the young girl and those trying to save her (and, in doing so, themselves at the same time).

Personally, I found the second half of the film to be a natural progression of the events which were set in motion at the beginning.  Yes, you could say that the second half of the film almost feels like a completely different film to how it began, but I didn't mind it at all.  I liked the characters and, although the antagonists were hardly 'fleshed out' to any great lengths other than they were 'baddies' who kidnapped people, I wasn't expecting some sort of amazing, character-driven epic.  It is what it is and I enjoyed it for what it did.  I suppose if I did have to offer one criticism it's that the film's lead (Melissa George) doesn't really do much in the way of acting for the second half.  I've seen her in enough other films to know that she's a very competent lead and could do better than the script (or lack thereof in the second half!) gives her to do.  All she really does is run away.

It's also totally worth mentioning the scenery, as it was filmed in some fantastic locations which really do a great job at showing just how, well, 'lonely' some parts of Britain really are.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

The Untouchables - Can't touch this

It's hard to believe that once upon a time, buying a bottle of WKD Blue from Tesco's on a Friday night could have bought you a one-way ticket to the slammer.  However, in 1930s America (aka the era of 'prohibition,' i.e. making alcohol illegal) this was basically happening.  Luckily, for us hardened drinkers good men like Al Capone ensured that we could still get drunk outside the local Weatherspoons and start a fight with someone smaller than us... or something like that. 

Actually, it wasn't quite like that.  No matter how silly banning booze may sound to us, it happened and violent gangs flouted these laws, most famously Al Capone.  That was why the city decided that a special police task force should be compiled to combat such nefarious criminal activity.  Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) was put in charge of stemming illegal liquor activity in the city of Chicago and, at the same time, bringing down the most wanted of criminals, Al Capone (a padded out Robert DeNiro). 'The Untouchables' tells the, er slightly fictionalised, story of this.

If you've ever done any research into this period of American history then you could probably make a twenty page list of the inaccuracies in this filmic interpretation of the actual events.  For example, hero and villain never really met in real life and Elliot Ness was unhappily divorced, as opposed to his ideal life we see on screen.  However, despite these sorts of points making the film more historically accurate, I'm pretty sure they would also make it a damn sight less enjoyable.  And it is very, very enjoyable.

First of all there's the cast.  Whatever you may think about Robert DeNiro's more recent output, there's no denying that in 1987 he was still at the top of his game and he gives an excellent performance as the film's antagonist - the only complaint being that he's probably not in it enough, seeing as he - like the real life Al Capone - spent most of his life hiding in one luxury dwelling to the next.  Kevin Costner was a gamble for the lead.  This was before he was Robin Hood and his Box Office draw was questionable at the time as to whether he could headline such a big budget film.  However, the film-makers made up for this by casting Sean Connery as his right-hand man (and, in doing so, helped market the film on the former Bond's inclusion).  There's a young Andy Garcia in there too, but it's DeNiro, Costner and Connery who you're going to be the most interested in.

Overall, it's a highly-entertaining gangster movie.  Yes, it probably condenses more action into the film than should probably be there, but it makes it all the more entertaining for doing so.  You probably don't have to be that into gangster/crime movies to appreciate this - definitely holds up to this day.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather